Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:08:30 +0300 From: George Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: additions to the Glossary Message-ID: <20040608090830.GA2270@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <200406080307.31235.linimon@lonesome.com> References: <200406080307.31235.linimon@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-06-08 03:07, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > This patch adds definitions for Giant, LOR, NDISulator, OBE, pointyhat, > and Project Evil, and expands the entry for BSD. > > Unless anyone objects, I would like to go ahead and commit these changes. I think they're great :-) : + <glossterm>Giant</glossterm> : + <glossdef> : + <para>The name of a kernel resource lock that protects a large : + set of kernel resources. It is an unwanted remnant of much : + earlier <acronym>BSD</acronym> kernels which used very coarse : + locking mechanisms (for instance, if any process was in the : + network stack, every other process was locked out). While : + this was adequate in the days where a machine might have only : + a few dozen processes, one networking card, and certainly only : + one processor, in current times it is an unacceptable : + performance bottleneck. &os; developers are actively working : + on replacing every occurrence with fine-grained locks that : + protect individual resources.</para> Cool, this is probably a much needed entry, since a lot of people are going to ask what "Giant" is, once they see it referenced in a commit log or an old, archived mail message. I don't like to sound like I'm knit picking too much, but perhaps "every occurence with..." could be "every use of Giant with..."? An explanation of what "coarse" and "fine-grained" locking is, is probably going to be useful too. : + <glossterm>Lock Order Reversal</glossterm> : + <acronym>LOR</acronym> : + <glossdef> : + <para>The &os; kernel uses a number of resource locks to : + arbitrate contention for those resources. A run-time : + lock diagnostic system found in &os.current; kernels : + (but removed for releases), called &man.witness.4;, : + detects the potential for deadlocks due to locking errors. : + (&man.witness.4; is actually slightly conservative, so : + it is possible to get false positives.) A true positive : + report indicates "if you were unlucky, a deadlock would : + have happened here".</para> ''...indicates "that" if you were unlucky...'' sounds a bit better. : + <glossterm>Overtaken By Events</glossterm> : + <acronym>OBE</acronym> : + <glossdef> : + <para>Indicates a suggested change (such as a Problem Report : + or a feature request) which is no longer relevant or : + applicable due to passage of time or more recent changes : + to &os;.</para> When time simply passes a problem is not very likely to just go away. More often than not, the user that reported it loses interest or changes his/her tools to avoid hitting the problem again. I don't think that mentioning the "passage of time" is a good idea here and it does sound a bit funny as a phrase. - Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040608090830.GA2270>